D&D 5E Starter Set Excerpt 5

[TwoSix]

Well, I am not complaining. Pathfinder wasted the goblin.

Gotta disagree here. Pathfinder goblins are classic cartoon villains, which goes great with the high-fantasy vibe of Pathfinder in general.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Considering Gremlins have long been considered goblinoids, this is entirely appropriate.

These (awesome) goblins are pretty much the same as the last concept art we've seen: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dreye/20121010

That's actually a great article to link to, because it shows me where a lot of my problem with these comes from.

He suggests that on a 1-10 scale of civilization (where Hill Giants are 1, and Mind Flayers, somewhat bizarrely, are 10 - I'd put Drow or something at 10 and Mind Flayers about 8), Goblinoids are a 7.

I'd totally disagree. I think each of the three main "Goblinoid" races (orcs seem to no longer really be Goblinoids, and I kind of agree with that policy) is at a different number - Goblins 3, Hobgoblins 9 to 10, and Bugbears 3-5. Having them all be mostly civilized seems totally messed up, to me.

 

[Zaukrie]

I like it, but not sure about the blade size.

 

[Jester David]

Well, I am not complaining. Pathfinder wasted the goblin.

Personally, I adore the Pathfinder goblins. They're so fun and crazed, but evil and vicious at the same time. They remind me of Labyrinth and other cinematic portrayals of goblins.They may be a joke, but it's black humour.

For me, goblins have always been scavengers, clad in left-overs and re-sized armour from other races, not manufacturing weapons like swords, merely re-using those from others, and generally being tribal little bastards. They're dangerous, not a joke, but they're not a "mini-orc", nor do they possess their own real culture/civilization. They're also a "real"-seeming species, not stylized or fancy. They talk and act bigger than they are, too, all threat display and then running away.
...
5E's, on the other hand, as I said, look simply like someone has seen Movie-LotR's Uruk-Hai, and said "What would it look like we made these guys 3-4' tall?". They have weapons of unique, non-D&D-style manufacture (total LotR inspiration there), their armour looks individually-made and is certainly made for goblins, specifically, and has impractical, very stylized spikes/hooks on it. Their heads, to me, do not look at all "goblin-y". And being brown, rather than green? That's downright un-goblin-y, and not a good direction (grey would have been better, if changing from green). On top of that, they all look pretty obviously male/masculine (again, this seems retrograde).
...
EDIT - PPS I think we can safely say that, had Pathfinder not taken "flat-faced, green, tribal" goblins and run with it to the point of making it practically a brand, we wouldn't be seeing goblins like this. The whole think REEKS of branding imho.

Pathfinder certainly has a lock on the semi-comic relief goblins (as does Warcraft) so D&D really has to take the alternate route of making them serious. There are fewer routes they can go with the goblin before being accused of copying Paizo.

I like the "new" colour. Pre 4e, D&D orcs were the green humanoid and goblins were yellow-brown-red. This is a nice return to that.
They look a little overly muscled and far too beefy, and the swords and equipment look a little too well crafted. They really do look like little miniature hobgoblins/orcs. Goblins should be a little scrawnier with a little cruder of equipment, and significantly smaller swords.


There's a place in the game for joke monsters.
Not all monsters need to be serious. Play is seldom serious: 90% of the game is spent joking with friends. Treating everything in the game like it's a high drama is disingenuous. There's room for monsters that just cry out to be mocked.
Goblins and kobolds and the like are CR 1 monsters at best, something rookie adventurers and town guards fight and defeat. They're innately weaker than human and dwarves and elves. They're never going to be an innate menace like orcs or gnolls or dragons. I've heard it argued that every monsters should be able to be the subject of a level 1-20/30 campaign, but I don't know many people that would want to fight goblins for every serious battle at every level. DM of the Rings mocked that a couple of times. Goblins are one of those monsters you fight a couple times and then move on from; individual epic goblins are okay but tribes of high level goblins is just weird.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1. Pathfinder's goblins are awesome in a creepy childlike pull-the-legs-off-of-spiders way. They're the first goblins in D&D and its diaspora that had a real distinct character, and they are still iconic and fun.
2. 4e goblins were fine, but highlight some of the "cartoony" nature of the art there. Bright colors, chunky equipment, action poses, a distinct "Rar! We are attacking you, Viewer of our Picture!" vibe.
3. I like these goblins. While I was kind of ambivalent about the concept art, seeing them in context like this makes them work. They're wolfish, emerging from the dark forests...yeah, I like that.
4. I like the picture overall. It's a scene! A story! It inspires me to run an adventure right now with that scene in it! Goblin ambush! There's not a lot of goblin images out there that inspire me to actually do something with the critters, but this passes that bar.
5. Part of what I like about that picture is the sense of grounded reality it gives a scene featuring a creature that never existed. The history in the dragon relief. The distinct style of the goblins' weapons. The little trinkets they carry. The gnarled trees. Quite nice!

Yeah, definitely one of my favorite images involving goblins probably ever. Spooky, foreboding, naturalistic, good stuff!

 

[Agamon]

Personally, I prefer my joke monsters to be the outlier critters, like flumphs or modrons. I was never a fan of PF style of goblins. These 5e guys look like serious business. And that's a good thing if the goal of bonded accuracy is to make low level monsters still dangerous at higher levels. If 10th level PCs get swarmed and captured by goblins, it's a lot less embarrassing if they actually look and act nasty.

 

[pemerton]

What exactly do you see as the similarities? Different skin tone, different skull structure, different body type

The skin tone is within the margin of printer's error for the sorts of illustrations that we see in D&D books.

The skull structure does not seem radically different to me: in the 4e picture, the left-most (from our point of view) has a rather prominent chin/jaw, the central one less so, and the right one has sunken cheeks. In the 5e picture we see a couple with prominent chins/jaws (eg the spear-wielder and the leftmost from out point of view) but the others less so, and we also have sunken cheeks and high cheekbones. The ears are also very similar (gremlin-like, as has been noted upthread). As are the hair-styles.

Nor do they seem to me to have different body types. There is a recurring motif of seemingly long limbs and powerful bodies. The bent legs presumably are intended to add dynamism to the picture, but also (presumably) allude to Tolkien's "bow-legged" orcs and goblins.

It seems to me that, side-by-side, the two pictures are recognisably of the same sorts of creature. Whereas the contrast with the AD&D MM picture is very marked. No hair. Not the same length of limb. Not the same "swept-back", receding forehead and skull.

 

[TwoSix]

That's actually a great article to link to, because it shows me where a lot of my problem with these comes from.

He suggests that on a 1-10 scale of civilization (where Hill Giants are 1, and Mind Flayers, somewhat bizarrely, are 10 - I'd put Drow or something at 10 and Mind Flayers about 8), Goblinoids are a 7.

I'd totally disagree. I think each of the three main "Goblinoid" races (orcs seem to no longer really be Goblinoids, and I kind of agree with that policy) is at a different number - Goblins 3, Hobgoblins 9 to 10, and Bugbears 3-5. Having them all be mostly civilized seems totally messed up, to me.

Hmm. I've always seen goblins as shading more towards lawful, myself. They tend to be presented as fairly servile, being used as cannon fodder for stronger and more aggressive races (typically hobgoblins). In the absence of a stronger force, they tend to be more feral, though.

Mind Flayers also seem distinctly civilized from my perspective. Their whole existence revolves around the community, and the elder brain at its center. They can't reproduce without the elder brain. And their very survival is aided by the cultivation of civilization of other sentients, so that they have centralized feeding locations.

 

[Agamon]

Part of what I like about that picture is the sense of grounded reality it gives a scene featuring a creature that never existed. The history in the dragon relief. The distinct style of the goblins' weapons. The little trinkets they carry. The gnarled trees. Quite nice!

Every piece of art we've seen is like this. What relief after years of cartoony action scenes from the 2 big RPGs. Standing ovation for the art director from this guy.

 

[Agamon]

He suggests that on a 1-10 scale of civilization (where Hill Giants are 1, and Mind Flayers, somewhat bizarrely, are 10 - I'd put Drow or something at 10 and Mind Flayers about 8), Goblinoids are a 7.

Drow are one dead deity away from dissolving into utter chaos. Not sure that deserves a 10 on the civilized scale. I agree with TwoSix about the Mind Flayers.

However, I do agree that goblinoids should be lower than 7. My FR game is from the 3e era, but it's still FR, and that's not the vibe I get.